09.12.2004
Galloway reveals SWP's hand in Scotland
Peter Manson examines the latest developments in Scotland and the growing tensions between the SWP and SSP
Under the headline, ‘Galloway to team up with Sheridan for assault on Labour seats at Holyrood’, the Scottish version of the Mail on Sunday claims: “Mr Galloway believes the recent implosion of the SSP, coupled with its treatment of Mr Sheridan over newspaper allegations, has created a crucial opening for his anti-war party, Respect, in the 2007 Holyrood elections” (December 5).
The paper is, of course, referring to the plethora of ‘revelations’ concerning comrade Sheridan’s private life that have featured heavily in the sensationalist press in Scotland. The SSP leadership was panicked into demanding Tommy’s resignation when he refused to handle the allegations in the way the executive wanted.
Comrade Galloway is quoted as saying: “Tommy is still fighting his corner in the SSP, but I fear he will have to accept they have betrayed him and move on. The Scottish Socialist Party has made a catastrophic blunder. It is my estimation that much more than half, maybe even much more than three-quarters, who voted for them did so because of Tommy Sheridan. The idea that these unknown Trotskyite apparatchiks who have done him down are going to get the same kind of vote that they did when led by Sheridan seems to me inherently improbable. These people who have done him down are not fit to tie his shoelaces.”
Having previously stated that he would leave behind Scottish politics, comrade Galloway has now apparently changed his mind: “I would certainly like to contend in Glasgow for the Scottish parliament elections. Tommy and I would be a great double act, a dream ticket, and people would vote for us. I am certain that together we could set the cat among the pigeons.”
Some might suggest that comrade Galloway has let his libel victory against The Daily Telegraph go to his head. Others might say that he has become caught up in a rather extreme case of wishful thinking. After all there are a number of problems in the way of his Galloway-Sheridan-Respect “dream ticket”, to put it mildly.
Firstly, comrade Sheridan, along with the rest of the leadership, has helped take the SSP to the point where it has collapsed into full-blown Scottish nationalism and therefore cannot be properly regarded as socialist, except in name only. But what of George Galloway and Respect? Through its SWP majority, and without a murmur of protest from comrade Galloway, Respect’s conference in October agreed to bureaucratically exclude the communist minority and then proceeded to vote down the principles of republicanism, a workers’ representative receiving a skilled worker’s wage, abortion on demand, open borders, secularism … and working class socialism.
Respect is therefore a left populist formation led by right-moving centrists who preach democracy but practise something altogether different and who brook not the slightest opposition from the left. Such is their control-freakery, such is their fear. The chances of this sorry organisation taking off are slim to zero. Why on earth would comrade Sheridan want to help replicate such an outfit in Scotland?
Secondly, does comrade Galloway really think that the SSP is as good as dead without Sheridan as convenor? It seems he does. Galloway told the Mail on Sunday two weeks earlier that the other five SSP MSPs had been “dragged into Holyrood clinging to Tommy’s coat tails and wouldn’t have got a hundred votes without his imprimatur” (November 21). Yet, while comrade Sheridan may well take a back seat for the next year or so, he is clearly expecting to stage a comeback in time for the Scottish parliament elections - assuming his libel action against the News of the World is successfully fought. In the December 5 press release issued by the SSP, Sheridan is quoted as saying: “I don’t know why George is raising this idea. I am absolutely committed to the Scottish Socialist Party and expect to be a leading candidate for the party in the 2007 Holyrood election.”
Thirdly - given that Sheridan is not about to lead a split from the SSP and, in spite of the crisis the party is currently undergoing, it does not seem to be on the point of collapse - who does George think will be his foot soldiers in Scotland?
Comrade Galloway is certainly right about one thing though: he definitely has “set the cat among the pigeons”. The SSP’s reaction has been one of outrage, accusing him of “coming to the aid of New Labour by threatening to split the left vote in Scotland” (press release, December 5).
Since then the leadership has taken the opportunity to launch a counteroffensive against what it sees as encroachment upon its territory. The SSP has laid its cards on the table in Scottish Socialist Voice: “Over the past three years, the SSP has been supportive of George Galloway in his battles with Blair and the New Labour hierarchy over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have never hidden our differences with George on a range of issues, including Scottish independence, which he vehemently opposes, and abortion rights, which he also opposes. The SSP also insists that parliamentary candidates pledge to live on no more than the average wage of a skilled worker - a policy which George Galloway has always resisted, both within the Labour Party and within Respect.
“Nonetheless, despite our disagreements, the SSP supported George’s moves to form a broad, leftwing, anti-war party in England after his expulsion from New Labour in 2003. However, our backing for Respect - and for other initiatives to create a working class socialist alternative to New Labour south of the border - has been based on a clear recognition that there is already a united socialist party in Scotland” (Scottish Socialist Voice December 9).
In addition SSP national secretary Allan Green has penned a letter to Respect (to which comrade Sheridan has added his name) demanding that the coalition distances itself from Galloway’s comments and gives a commitment to stay out of Scotland (see opposite). Comrade Galloway’s office informed the Weekly Worker that the MP was expressing his “personal opinion”, not that of Respect, in the Mail on Sunday article.
Why did Tommy go?
Everybody has long since dropped the pretence that comrade Sheridan quit in order to support his wife, Gail, in a difficult pregnancy and be a good father to their first child when it is born. Tommy himself now admits things were rather more complicated: it was a “combination of private and family circumstances” that caused him to quit (Morning Star December 3).
We have suggested that his departure was forced and resulted from an outbreak of moralistic panic on the SSP’s executive. This was brought on by the impending ‘scandal’ that was about to break: within days of the resignation announcement the News of the World in Scotland filled its first five pages with lurid details of what it claimed were Tommy’s sexual exploits.
Supposedly we were wrong. At least according to Scottish Socialist Voice: “Unfortunately, George Galloway has been duped into believing that the SSP executive ditched Tommy Sheridan over an extra-marital affair. Nor is he alone. Several London-based newspapers, including Socialist Worker and The Socialist, appear to have made the same mistake. The Socialist, for example, claims that the SSP executive took action over ‘unproven tabloid allegations’.
“The SSP executive has never expressed an opinion on ‘unproven allegations’ - including the allegations that appeared in the News of the World on November 14. The discussions that did take place between Tommy and the SSP executive were based, not on ‘unproven tabloid allegations’, but on undisputed facts” (December 9).
True, the SSP executive has passed no formal resolution on ‘unproven allegations’. So SSV is using a deliberately evasive formulation to hide the simple truth that Tommy Sheridan was told to go. This now appears to be “undisputed”, and the only reason we know of why that happened was the coming press scandal.
We are not interested in comrade Sheridan’s private life. That is his concern and the concern of those close to him. Apart from wishing him and his wife well, that is the end of it for us. What worries us, though, is who exactly is setting the agenda in the SSP? Is it the Murdoch press and behind it the dark hand of the secret state? This is not a question that should be irresponsibly brushed aside.
The SSP’s executive leant on comrade Sheridan because he would not agree to either tell everything or (the preferred option) refuse altogether to comment on allegations about his private life. Most of all, the EC insisted he should steer clear of the courts - a course of action that could see more embarrassing claims come to light and even result in the SSP’s ‘main spokesperson’ being dubbed a liar.
But comrade Sheridan insisted on initiating libel proceedings. He writes: “… court action … is not always the best response, but, in my opinion, is for me. I value the opinion of those who caution against entering the lion’s den against the evil Murdoch empire, in unfamiliar territory for socialists. The weight of the establishment definitely sides with the rich and powerful in court cases. Other smears may even be thrown at me. I demand the right to deal with them in my own way” (Morning Star December 3).
Comrade Sheridan concludes that the “combination of private and family circumstances” to which he refers “makes the decision of our party’s executive committee to accept my letter of resignation absolutely correct”. This peculiar and deliberately cryptic phrasing is aimed (unsuccessfully) at concealing the fact that it was the EC that proposed Tommy’s resignation in the first place. Surely, if it had been entirely voluntary, it would have been Tommy’s own “decision” that would have been called into question more than that of the EC.
The executive has not denied that the convenor agreed to submit his resignation as a result of the pressure from the leadership itself, and comrade Sheridan, it seems, is continuing to go along with the agreed formula. The letter to Respect states: “It had become apparent in the days before [the November 27 national council which voted to accept the forced resignation] that the SSP had been the victim of a malicious and systematic campaign to provide the media with misinformation designed to sow confusion and division around issues concerned with Tommy Sheridan’s resignation as party convenor.”
The Green-Sheridan letter makes no attempt to clear up this “confusion”. Nor does it hint at who was responsible for the “malicious and systematic campaign” and how it could have been laid to rest.
Role of SWP
The part played by the Socialist Worker platform, the Socialist Workers Party in Scotland, has been the subject of much speculation and controversy within the SSP.
Chris Bambery, commenting in Socialist Worker on comrade Sheridan’s case, writes: “… the SSP leadership panicked, and urged Tommy’s resignation. That panic derives from seeing things too much in terms of media perceptions rather than how grassroots party supporters view things” (December 4).
In my opinion, this is a pretty accurate assessment. Nobody is suggesting that the EC itself was pursuing a full-blown witch-hunt against Tommy over what he is supposed to have done. The fear expressed in the Weekly Worker is that the comrades succumbed to the presbyterian moralism still prevalent throughout much of Scottish society and fell for what could be an MI5 sting.
Comrade Bambery should be well informed about EC discussions and decisions. The SW platform has three members sitting on the SSP executive: Mike Gonzales, Pat Smith and Charlotte Ahmed. I believe Pat Smith and one of the other two were present at the November 9 EC meeting (which, incidentally, voted unanimously for comrade Sheridan to resign). At least two were at the November 24 EC meeting which - again unanimously - endorsed Tommy’s resignation and issued the statement put to the November 27 special meeting of the national council.
Comrade Bambery’s comments are clearly intended not only as a criticism of the SSP executive, but of his own comrades as well. This was demonstrated at the November 27 NC meeting, where SW platform comrades strongly opposed and voted as a bloc against the executive statement. The line had been transmitted down from the SWP leadership.
Subsequently, the SW platform has come under sustained attack within the SSP - particularly since the publication of the Mail on Sunday article containing Galloway’s comments. As the main force in Respect, the SWP is naturally assumed to be in cahoots with George in a “London-based” plot to lead a breakaway. The SSP’s ultra-nationalists have resumed their long-running anti-SWP campaign with a vengeance, dubbing the platform a “fifth column” and an agent of the “Brit left” (for the likes of the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement, this is almost as bad as being an agent of the British state).
The ultra-nationalists are not entirely wrong. Look at Bambery’s concluding paragraph: “Last June in the European elections the SSP slipped further behind the Greens in the polls. Now there are voices in the party saying people won’t be interested in next year’s Westminster election. Yet this election can bring pro-war Labour MPs to book over Iraq. The SSP needs to ensure it is back in pole position as the radical voice of Scotland” (my emphasis Socialist Worker December 4).
Pregnant words. Obviously Bambery’s formulation leaves the door wide open for the SWP to sadly turn round and criticise the SSP at some point in the near future the for not putting itself “back in pole position as the radical voice of Scotland”.
Everyone knows that the SWP’s marriage with the SSP is one of convenience. It is neither a love match nor a meeting of minds. The SWP dislikes the SSP’s left nationalism. The problem is that it wants to replace or split the SSP through Respect and that in order to promote its narrow interests as a bureaucratic centralist sect.
John Rees will certainly have recognised a golden opportunity with comrade Sheridan’s forced resignation. As I have pointed out, Tommy is still more familiar to voters in Scotland than his party. By championing Sheridan, by standing alongside him in the closest solidarity, by associating the SWP with him, comrade Rees calculates that one day soon he can capture what he rightly sees as a key figure in Scottish politics.
Sheridan will be assiduously and gently courted over the next year or two. That is why the SW platform’s executive members were given such a verbal doing over. Their blundering tactical ineptitude could have ruined everything.
What we got from George Galloway in the Mail on Sunday is nothing but a bastardised version of this strategy. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Galloway’s remarks have caused embarrassment for some SW platform comrades. A few of them have even distanced themselves from the SWP position, suggesting, for example, that comrade Bambery’s article was ‘badly expressed’.
Unity
This passage is also quoted in the Green-Sheridan letter to Respect and in internal SSP mailings, so clearly it is not just Tommy who thinks comrade Fox is the best man for the job. However, he does not meet with the approval of all sections of the membership. For some he is just not nationalist enough. While, like all the main SSP leaders, he campaigns around the SSP’s principal slogan, an “independent socialist Scotland”, according to the ultras, he fails to demand “independence” as a stand-alone (increasingly “independence and socialism” is being used interchangeably in party statements with “independent socialist Scotland”).
The point is that, since the last conference, SSP policy is now in reality independence first, ‘socialism’ later. On the one hand, comrades like Scottish Socialist Voice columnist Kevin Williamson go on about a “positive embracing of a Scottish identity”, a “shared national historiography” and the need to adopt “the icons and symbolism” of “Scottish resistance to British rule” yet, on the other hand, deny this has anything to do with nationalism.
The leadership is hoping that, whoever the new convenor is, the controversy of the past weeks can be left behind. So Tommy states: “People outside our ranks tried to get us to fight each other. Only the bosses and the ruling class benefit when socialists fight among themselves. We are too determined in our opposition to their illegal wars and capitalist-inspired poverty to fight each other.” (Morning Star December 3).
Comrades Green and Sheridan, in their joint letter to Respect, similarly imply that the furore over the leadership crisis is now a thing of the past: “The SSP were able to draw a line under the issue and sought to move forward in a positive and united fashion to campaign for troops out of Iraq, for equality, peace and socialism.”
What is being posed is a false and hypocritical unity. False, because it is achieved through gagging orders and claims of near unanimity, along with the suppression of informed discussion. Hypocritical, because it is for Scotland only. The “London-based” left can look after England (and, at a push, Wales) but what goes on north of the border is the concern of the SSP alone.
The notion that there is a single UK state that can only be defeated on the basis of all-Britain working class unity at the highest level - most importantly through a single democratic centralist party, uniting the communists and revolutionary socialists of Scotland, England and Wales - is an anathema for the SSP leadership.
Unlike Galloway, we do not write off the many talented and experienced comrades within the ranks of the SSP and, unlike Respect and the SWP, we recognise the vital importance of combining unity against the existing constitutional monarchy state with Scotland’s right to self-determination.
That is why the CPGB is committed to abolishing the monarchy and fighting for the establishment of a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales.